Almost Unbelievable This Still Goes On

Bullshit. Many of those people are medical professionals, the rest are those who can connect the dots, like myself and others.

Do you get a home inspector to tell you if the neighbourhood is desirable to raise a family, the proximity to schools, shops, public transport, the crime rates, the affordability and accessibility, the type of home, the suburb, location of the house and many others. See, there is a difference between my research and yours. Mine is a whole lot more thorough.

When you can work out that the narrative is bullshit, only to facilitate an agenda, then you become an anti-vaxxer. It's too simple. But not for some.

 

You are saying you won't bothered inspecting the house yourself even AFTER the inspector told you it's good to go? This is what Democrats and big pharmaceuticals were doing.

Trust us, we know what's good for you. Don't bother looking into the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. If you question us on social media, we will ban you, label you a conspiracy theorist, spreading mis and disinformation, or a Trumper.

 

@Nwolfe35

A very interesting article/study, for those not, in the know.

How the Mainstream Media Help to Spread Disinformation about Covid-19
https://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/2735

"In this article, we hypothesise how mainstream media coverage can promote the spread of disinformation about Covid-19. Mainstream media are often discussed as opposed to disinformation (Glasser; Benkler et al.). While the disinformation phenomenon is related to the intentional production and spread of misleading and false information to influence public opinion (Fallis; Benkler et al.), mainstream media news is expected to be based on facts and investigation and focused on values such as authenticity, accountability, and autonomy (Hayes et al.). However, journalists might contribute to the spread of disinformation when they skip some stage of information processing and reproduce false or misleading information (Himma-Kadakas). Besides, even when the purpose of the news is to correct disinformation, media coverage might contribute to its dissemination by amplifying it (Tsfati et al.). This could be particularly problematic in the context of social media, as users often just read headlines while scrolling through their timelines (Newman et al.; Ofcom). Thus, some users might share news from the mainstream media with legitimate disinformation about Covid-19. The pandemic creates a delicate context, as journalists are often pressured to produce more information and, therefore, are more susceptible to errors."

Funny that most "anti-covid-vaxxers" don't pay much attention to MSM.

 

And your "research" consists of swallowing all the "psuedo science" bullshit and lies plastered into your cranium from the fallacy of this joke called the MSM.

Anyone with an actual brain would never believe anything out of a government that allows this monopoly of strict control of all information, that's 90 percent filtered through 6 monolithic/mega corporations run by 272 executives who are government blessed and allow this bullshit of total control of every narrative pumped into peoples brainwashed heads to happen.

This insanity of total control over 90 percent of what people allowed to read, hear, and see is allowed to happen because everything that this pseudo government does is for the technocrat/billionaires who actually own them, and apparently lots of you fools too!

 

I can inspect to the best of my ability but I'm not a house inspector. Why would I expect to find something they missed? The problem with you anti vaxxers is that you have hired your building inspectors and they are piss poor building inspectors. So when you try and inspect after them you just agree.

I have looked into the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine. The difference is I use reliable sources...anti vaxxers use "infowars" or other such garbage.

You start off with the assumption that the government is trying to screw you...and everything has to fall in line with that basic assumption or else it's "Big Brother" telling you what to believe.

Just thinking there has to be something wrong with what the government says just because it is the government saying it is a piss poor way of judging anything.

 

Do you understand what the article is saying? Because I'm pretty sure you don't.

 

Yeah, I do. Some key points to take away from it.

"mainstream media coverage can promote the spread of disinformation about Covid-19. Mainstream media are often discussed as opposed to disinformation"
"focussed on the hypothesis that legitimate news can contribute to the spread of disinformation on social media"
"we focussed on the hypothesis that legitimate news can contribute to the spread of disinformation"
" In addition, the mainstream media might disseminate false or inaccurate disinformation (Tsfati et al.). Particularly, we focus on inaccurate headlines that reinforce disinformation narratives, as social media users often only read news headlines"
"This study is about how mainstream media coverage might contribute to the spread of disinformation about Covid-19"
"Conclusion
In this article, we analysed how the mainstream media contribute to the spread of disinformation about Covid-19. In particular, we looked at how links from the mainstream media with headlines that support disinformation discourse spread on Facebook, compared to other links from the mainstream media."

Now, for something else to chew on. Operation Mockingbird & The Age of Pisces

Can you trust the CIA to state they've stopped this experiment? I certainly don't, but you might.

 

@Nwolfe35

and to rub some salt into that open wound;

a continuation of the conclusion of the study.

"We identified that (1) some Facebook groups only shared links with headlines that support disinformation narratives. This created a “disinformation bubble”. In this bubble, (2) Facebook users shared mainstream media links to reinforce disinformation – in particular, pro-Bolsonaro disinformation, as many of these groups had a pro-Bolsonaro alignment. In these cases, the mainstream media contributed to the spread of disinformation. Consequently, journalists ought to take extra care when producing news, especially headlines, which will be the most visible part of the stories on social media."

Does it state anywhere, that anyone took the headlines and rearranged the narratives to suit their cause? MSM is the culprit.

Am I reading it (the study), correctly?

 

What misinformation about COVID are they talking about?

 

Oh but in this case they, WHO, CDC, and White House have been wrong. Did you miss the part where we were told by these people that if we get the jab, we won't catch th virus? Instead of admitting that you can catch it regardless vaxxed or not, they called anyone who question their narrative anti-vaxxers and spreading misinformation with media and social media doing their bidding. Breakthrough cases, that was another excuse to lie. See previous sentence. Didn't end when their narrative fell apart. Next, let's use children as pawns even though science has proven over and over that the virus has no effects on non at risk children. There has been extremely minute cases where a non at risk died. The flu killed far more children, healthy or not, than covid can ever imagine but the media won't tell us. Why is that? Can you find any stats of non at risk children who were killed by the virus? I had a hard time. What about this loser Gavin Newsom telling Californians that if you don't get the vaccine, 22 million people would be infected when he was caught without a mask twice violating his own mandate. Remember Pelosi? Every small businesses were shut except when she needed a new hairdo. Newsom's family owned winery was the only one allowed to open whereas others were shut. I can go in with lots more incidents of Democrats violating their own mandate.

You can open your eyes and ask questions or quietly go along. I already know who were the winners from this pandemic. It ain't you or me or 99% of Americans.

 

I missed the part where they said if we get the jab we won’t get the virus but that is understandable because no one from those organizations ever said that. How do I know no one ever said it? Because I’m informed enough to know that no vaccine is 100% effective.

COVID is more deadly to kids than the flu

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/news...ily-covid-is-more-lethal-to-kids-than-the-flu

 

Wow, what a beautiful display of cognitive dissonance!

Your MIND missed the many times Biden said you won't get it if you take the shot because your mind won't let that information in to your calculation of what's going on around you.

If you snooze you lose. Good luck Nwolfe.

 

Wow, you have one instance of Biden saying you won’t get COVID if you get the vaccine. That’s not WHO or the CDC. It’s also not “they”, it was one man speaking extemporaneously.

So in all the information about the vaccine that’s the one statement you’re going to glom onto?

Don’t want to talk about the CDC statement that said, “While COVID-19 vaccines are working well, some people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will still get sick, because no vaccines are 100% effective. These are called vaccine breakthrough cases. However, data suggest that vaccination may make symptoms less severe in people who are vaccinated but still get COVID-19.”?

What about the WHO website which says, “All COVID-19 vaccines approved by WHO for emergency use listing have been through randomized clinical trials to test their quality, safety and efficacy. To be approved, vaccines are required to have a high efficacy rate of 50% or above.”

Nope, you’re going to focus in on what Biden said, ignoring everything else, because it feeds into your paranoid world view that “they” are lying to us.

 

@Nwolfe35 Some people on this thread just can't fathom that they might just be wrong. All I see is a lot of hubris related to what they oh so confidently think they know.

I don't know how many times I have read that people are doing their own research and making their decisions based on critical thinking. It's not just here on this forum. Seems to me by actually following the links to the websites posted by members like UNT, it is clear that doing their own research amounts to them making a decision on who to believe. None of this research is based on any kind of research produced by immunologists, virologists, and those who specialize in vaccinology who have the required education and years of postdoctoral experiences specializing in their fields of interest. Unfortunately, when one focuses all of their 'own research' on restricted sources usually authored by lay people, one is not engaging in any kind of meaningful research nor are they engaging in critical thinking. It's easy to see how many fancy themselves as independent thinkers but can't see their 'independent' thinking is based on the sources they choose to trust. Not based on the reliability and validity of the source, but just because they have chosen to trust them. When an opinion from a real expert conflicts with their core beliefs, they resort to denial and do their 'own' research to find the real truth. If any of them were honest with themselves they would think about what they believe and why they believe it. It comes down to cherry picking information that supports their beliefs and disregarding the rest.

Do any of the posters on this thread have the same amount or more knowledge that the actual experts who spend years in their field? A trustworthy source is not one where non-experts are claiming they have out-researched the experts and claim that all these experts are lying and mistaken. This is being misled by propaganda.

It is totally asinine of these non-experts to claim they have any kind of expertise because they do 'their own research' when they don't have the scientific expertise to evaluate the claims of the lay people who they put all their trust in. They find tons of websites, accounts on social media, and a handful of medical professionals who share the same opinions as they do -- all of these sources of information confirm their beliefs about covid-19 and vaccinations. Of course, this is not any kind of meaningful research. All they are doing is seeking out information that confirms their own beliefs and they disregard any other source of information. If this isn't denial, I don't know what is. I see no critical thinking from those who claim they are critical thinkers. There are links to dodgy websites full of misinformation that they take as 'fact'. Very complex issues are totally oversimplified and really nobody provides any actual substantive arguments. Rather than have a conversation rooted in science, anybody who doesn't agree with them is stupid or ignorant and unable to think for themselves.

From my view, it is pointless to engage with these posters. They have already made up their minds and will keep regurgitating the crap they find on their fav websites. Perhaps, these posters might want to entertain the possibility that 'doing their own research' doesn't result in them finding real evidence or knowing the truth because the only truth and evidence they are considering is truth and evidence that supports their own erroneous beliefs. I think the most powerful thing to do, is respond to the misinformation with solid science and ignore everything else.

 

At this stage, antivaxxers are only interesting as examples of the effects of cult psychology.

For example, they actually think their nonsense becomes valid if they just use a really big font, or if they stick it in a dumb meme graphic.

Normal people don't do that. They just chuckle at it.

 

Absolutely agree.
I don’t respond to convince them (although it would be a fantastic result if I did). No I respond to make sure that someone reading this thread who has not gone completely down the rabbit hole is shown why their stuff is bs.

 

AHAHAHAHA. Time to pull your head out of the sand, take off the blindfolds and smell the bullshit you people think you perceive as the truth. You can't connect any dots, can you? What YOU'RE ALL GETTING CONNED BY IS MISINFORMATION. Tell me one person that has taken the jabs and not gotten sick or died from it. But you'd call it covid. Once the bodies hit the floor from SADS which is a new acronym for adults just dropping dead.

So, I bet you can't get your head around this; have then been such a large surge of cases of SADS between 2019-2020, compared to the years 2021 and 2022. What has changed in that time? There was covid happening in your reality, but were adults dying from SADS during that time? Nooooooooooooooo. What was released in 2021, when SADS began? CAN YOU GUESS? It was the vacc..erines. Strange coincidence that people getting these jabs die from SADS. DON'T YOU THINK?
You and all the other jab junkies just can't handle the truth being dished up for you, hey? That's why you are compelled to respond with such utter rubbish. The truth doesn't care about your feelings.

 

Me. I’ve all shots and boosters and not gotten sick and I’m obviously still alive

 

Fking everything!

 

What utter bullshit!
Geez, haven't you been taken down the garden path? I bet you wear a mask in your car when you're alone too, perhaps in the shower and while you sleep. Not enough oxygen, hey?

Tell me, how is it more deadly to kids? Maybe those that have helicopter parents that place them in an oxygen tent their entire lives.

 

The biggest cult following is those who take the jab for the fake false god (pseudo-science) Pfauci.

 

Really not an answer. Give me a specific example of what "misinformation" this article says the MSM helps spread.

 

So you didn't read the Bloomberg article I posted a link to?

From the article: According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, childhood flu deaths during the regular season have ranged from 39 to 199 since 2004. Meanwhile, in 2021 alone, more than 600 children died from Covid-19, according to the analysis done by Jeremy Faust, a professor at Harvard University Medical School and physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

 

The word meaning for "everything".

everything
pronoun

ev·ery·thing | \ ˈev-rē-ˌthiŋ
\
Definition of everything
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a : all that exists
b : all that relates to the subject

2 : all that is important you mean everything to me

3 : all sorts of other things —used to indicate related but unspecified events, facts, or conditions all the pains and colds and everything— E. B. White

Bullshit


Bullshit


This has been injured and still advocates the sh!t


And the fact that they are not reporting on the injuries and fatalities occurring is misinformation.

 

Did you read/watch any of mine?

Fearmongering information via a corrupt organisation, which I posted and you failed to read, yet you cite from them. No wonder you're blind.